Mod Feedback [By Request] RotaryCraft Suggestions

[madnewmy]

The power output, like the other engines, is calculated using real physics (in this case a kinematics equation for falling water), so no.

Could having the max heigh reduced and therefor the max power be an acceptable change to respect irl physics?

 

[Demosthenex]

Could having the max heigh reduced and therefor the max power be an acceptable change to respect irl physics?

Is that another way to say you agree they are over powered? I'd support a height restriction.

 

[madnewmy]

Is that another way to say you agree they are over powered? I'd support a height restriction.

Don't know how over powered they are, I don't use them
But they look way too overpowered...

 

[Padfoote]

Don't know how over powered they are, I don't use them
But they look way too overpowered...

It really depends. I would much rather run several performance engines chained together than build a 64 block waterfall just to run a single hydrokinetic.

 

[madnewmy]

It really depends. I would much rather run several performance engines chained together than build a 64 block waterfall just to run a single hydrokinetic.

Unless i can make it look nice, same here.

Last time i used one, I would charge a coil with it (back when they had no limit) and would power my extractor with them

Talking about coil, anyway to read the charge without CC?

 

[Padfoote]

Talking about coil, anyway to read the charge without CC?

Pretty sure comparators work.

 

[Reika]

I like what you did with the thermal mass of stone to lava. ;]

So I'm looking at your code, and comparing against the first reference I found (wikipedia) for calculating the power of falling water. I don't understand the square root, are you using height and gravity to create a flow amount? I'm trying to understand because I love how you root all of this in physics!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower#Calculating_the_amount_of_available_power

Here's the power curve I see from your formula: https://imgur.com/Eg2UFnV

I used 0.25 * 1000 * sqrt(2 * 9.81 * dy) * dy/1024, where
* 0.25 must be efficiency
* 1000 kilograms per M^3 of water
* 9.81 is acceleration due to gravity
* dy is the height of the water column

If I assume the flow rate can never be more than 1 cubic meter per second (think of when you remove a source block, how long it takes to create a new water block. It's about a second) I get a flat value which caps at 150 kW @ 64 high. I can attribute Minecraft rendering a solid column of water to rendering, I'm asking how much water it would create to make the flow since all MC water physics is made up anyway.

0.25 * 1000 * 1 * 9.81 * dy / 1024
https://imgur.com/b3RWaRr

Using the wikipedia formula.

It has been a long time since I wrote this, but here is what I can work out:
No, I used the kinematics formula v_final^2 = v_initial^2 +2*a*h to calculate the speed of the falling water (v), then calculate the mass flow rate (mdot) through the control volume. Force is velocity times the mass flow rate, and then torque is the force times the radius (25cm). Radial velocity is of course easily calculated knowing that v is also the tangential velocity at r=0.25.

Talking about coil, anyway to read the charge without CC?

A comparator.

 

[Demosthenex]

It really depends. I would much rather run several performance engines chained together than build a 64 block waterfall just to run a single hydrokinetic.

To power those gas engines requires you to automate making ethanol and additives. Dropping water from a height takes little skill and no automation.

 

[Padfoote]

To power those gas engines requires you to automate making ethanol and additives. Dropping water from a height takes little skill and no automation.

It still takes the automation of lubricant in order to continuously run. Plus, not many people will go for an engine that takes around 67 blocks to work at full power over several doing the same thing in a handful of blocks, automation aside. The only time I've seen anyone purposefully use several hydrokinetics was in an attempt to skip the lower tiers and jump straight to bedrock.

 

[Demosthenex]

It has been a long time since I wrote this, but here is what I can work out:
No, I used the kinematics formula v_final^2 = v_initial^2 +2*a*h to calculate the speed of the falling water (v), then calculate the mass flow rate (mdot) through the control volume. Force is velocity times the mass flow rate, and then torque is the force times the radius (25cm). Radial velocity is of course easily calculated knowing that v is also the tangential velocity at r=0.25.

Interesting how similar it was to the wikipedia entry on watts from falling water.

Are you assuming a non-stop flow of water? I think that may be where we differ. I would assert nonstop water = nonstop energy, where if you tried to bucket up water you get maybe a bucket per second. I'd also assert that we can blame rendering on why waterfalls don't stutter. ;][DOUBLEPOST=1405818950][/DOUBLEPOST]

It still takes the automation of lubricant in order to continuously run. Plus, not many people will go for an engine that takes around 67 blocks to work at full power over several doing the same thing in a handful of blocks, automation aside. The only time I've seen anyone purposefully use several hydrokinetics was in an attempt to skip the lower tiers and jump straight to bedrock.

Lube is easy to automate. Ethanol isn't, and I ended up powering a blaze spawner to get blaze powder for additives.

Watts for effort, hydro is a cinch and completely eclipses cool engines like gas.

 

[Padfoote]

Lube is easy to automate. Ethanol isn't, and I ended up powering a blaze spawner to get blaze powder for additives.

Watts for effort, hydro is a cinch and completely eclipses cool engines like gas.

I agree, but I'm just pointing out that most people won't be using the hydrokinetics in large quantities unless they're either brute forcing their way through tiers or want to use an engine that's a bit more maintainence free in terms of resources required. Should they be nerfed in some way? Probably. But I'm not a designer in anyway and can't contribute to the discussion about how to carry out said nerf.

 

[Folanlron]

Is there any chance of having a vitrification system for nuclear waste ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Vitrification

It's fun having it in my AE system, but ermm doesn't seem right hahaha

 

[Reika]

Is there any chance of having a vitrification system for nuclear waste ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Vitrification

It's fun having it in my AE system, but ermm doesn't seem right hahaha

This is essentially the storage step that is already present.

 

[Demosthenex]

It has been a long time since I wrote this, but here is what I can work out:
No, I used the kinematics formula v_final^2 = v_initial^2 +2*a*h to calculate the speed of the falling water (v), then calculate the mass flow rate (mdot) through the control volume. Force is velocity times the mass flow rate, and then torque is the force times the radius (25cm). Radial velocity is of course easily calculated knowing that v is also the tangential velocity at r=0.25.

@Reika, how about a hydro engine must be supplied water from your liquid pipes, and consumes water and requires pressure to run? That way you could perhaps have an elevated reservoir you have to put water into, and then the vertical pipe draining into the turbine transfers the pressure into torque?

I think the issue here is the Minecraft infinite water mechanics make it hard to determine how to manage water without making it an unbalanced infinite power source. After playing through the handbook and trying each engine, I was left with the impression that the hydro should be more powerful than a wind turbine, but significantly less powerful than any fuel powered engine.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that steel shafts break at 5kNm torque, so how can a steel water wheel output so much? Would it make more sense to say the R is fixed at 32, and if you put more water height in than steel can take the hydro breaks? Then the max output would be about 175kW.

 

[Thurak]

Im not sure if it should be less powerful than the ethanol engines, but it certainly shouldn't be with infinite water - just think of having infinite jet fuel..

Doesn't help trying to add realism to a completely unrealistic set of water physics

 

[Reika]

@Reika, how about a hydro engine must be supplied water from your liquid pipes, and consumes water and requires pressure to run? That way you could perhaps have an elevated reservoir you have to put water into, and then the vertical pipe draining into the turbine transfers the pressure into torque?

I think the issue here is the Minecraft infinite water mechanics make it hard to determine how to manage water without making it an unbalanced infinite power source. After playing through the handbook and trying each engine, I was left with the impression that the hydro should be more powerful than a wind turbine, but significantly less powerful than any fuel powered engine.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that steel shafts break at 5kNm torque, so how can a steel water wheel output so much? Would it make more sense to say the R is fixed at 32, and if you put more water height in than steel can take the hydro breaks? Then the max output would be about 175kW.

I do not like the idea of reducing their max output. I think a solution should probably have to do with curbing infinite water physics.

 

[Sm31415]

It has been a long time since I wrote this, but here is what I can work out:
No, I used the kinematics formula v_final^2 = v_initial^2 +2*a*h to calculate the speed of the falling water (v), then calculate the mass flow rate (mdot) through the control volume. Force is velocity times the mass flow rate, and then torque is the force times the radius (25cm). Radial velocity is of course easily calculated knowing that v is also the tangential velocity at r=0.25.

If memory serves Reika, that kinematics formula, one of the so named equations of motions, is only really useable on point masses? I mean considering a 1 meter cubed volume of water falling as a point mass does not strike me as terribly realistic.

 

[Reika]

If memory serves Reika, that kinematics formula, one of the so named equations of motions, is only really useable on point masses? I mean considering a 1 meter cubed volume of water falling as a point mass does not strike me as terribly realistic.

When you neglect air resistance, as I did, the shape and size of the mass is irrelevant.

 

[Sm31415]

When you neglect air resistance, as I did, the shape and size of the mass is irrelevant.

Neglecting air resistance, is also not very realistic?

 

[Reika]

Neglecting air resistance, is also not very realistic?

It is a necessary simplification, unless you want the game bogged down with solving partial differential equations. Minecraft is not MatLab.